Minnesota Supreme Court Releases In re R.S.

Here is the opinion:

Opinion – Published

The court’s syllabus:

1. The plain language of 25 U.S.C. § 1911(b) (2006) is not ambiguous and, with respect to an Indian child not residing or domiciled within the child’s tribe’s reservation, permits transfer to tribal court of only foster care placement and termination of parental rights proceedings.

2. The provision of the 2007 Tribal/State Agreement requiring transfer of “any child placement/custody proceedings” is void to the extent that it purports to require transfer of preadoptive and adoptive placement proceedings involving an Indian child not residing or domiciled on the reservation of the child’s tribe.

3. With respect to an Indian child not residing or domiciled on the child’s tribe’s reservation, Rule 48 of the Minnesota Rules of Juvenile Protection Procedure, providing for transfer of “the juvenile protection matter” to the tribal court of an Indian child’s tribe, is limited to foster care placement and termination of parental rights proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

A link to streaming video of the oral argument.

Here is our posting on our amicus brief and the lower court decision.

This entry was posted in Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher, ICWA, Research and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Minnesota Supreme Court Releases In re R.S.

  1. I am sorry, I think you made a mistake. This opinion could not have come from my home state Minnesota. I expect this opinion is from the another jurisdiction. Oklahoma reached the correct decision on this issue and The MN Justices pulled a Rehnquist absent the enlightened Justices Paul Anderson and Viking Great Justice Page. I love the dissent and feel a symbiotic bond with Justice Paul Anderson, you Sir “get it” I admire your efforts. I have been giving props to the MN Supreme Court for decades all over Indian Country as a State that respects ICWA.and the intent of ICWA. In Re R.S. and L.S. has knocked the legs out from under me. Do we have to amend ICWA?

Comments are closed.